[ad_1]
The French Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision to dismiss the allegations of the cement giant Lafarge’s involvement in crimes against humanity in the Syrian civil war.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday marked a major setback for Lafarge, who was accused of paying nearly 13 million euros ($15.3 million) to armed groups including ISIL to maintain its presence in Syria The cement plant in the north continues to operate. The beginning of the national war.
Based on its merger with the Swiss group Holcim in 2015, Rafah is under formal investigation in France for its efforts to keep its factories in Syria running after the outbreak of the conflict in 2011.
Human rights organizations including the Berlin-based European Center for Constitution and Human Rights (ECCHR) and the French Sherpa filed a claim against Lafarge, claiming that the organization purchased raw materials and oil from armed fighters and passed checkpoints safely for workers Pay the fees.
Lafarge admitted that its Syrian subsidiary paid intermediary fees to negotiate with armed groups to allow people and goods to move within the war zone.
But it denies any responsibility for the money in the hands of the armed groups and has been working hard to get the case to be dropped.
Panorama of the Lafarge Cement Syria (LCS) cement plant in Jalabiya, northern Syria, February 19, 2018 [File: Delil Souleiman/AFP]‘Complicity even if there is no intention’
The Paris Court of Appeal dismissed charges of crimes against humanity in 2019, saying that its acceptance of payment was not intended to abet ISIL’s terrible agenda for the execution of death penalty and torture.
However, it ruled that the company was prosecuted on three other charges-financing terrorism, violating EU embargoes and endangering the lives of others.
With the support of non-governmental organizations, 11 former Syrian employees of Lafarge Syrian Cement Company (LCS) challenged the decision in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The French Supreme Court rejected the lower court’s ruling on conspiracy on Tuesday, ruling that “even if a person has no intention of being connected with the crime he committed, he can also become an accomplice in a crime against humanity.”
It added: “Knowingly paying millions of dollars to an organization whose sole purpose is to commit a crime is enough to constitute a collusion, regardless of whether the parties involved take action to conduct commercial activities.”
The judges added that if the court adopts a more lenient interpretation, “many acts of collusion” will not be punished.
However, the ruling does not mean that Lafarge will automatically face trial on the most serious allegations of actions taken by French companies in foreign countries in recent years.
Instead, the court referred the matter to the investigating judge to reconsider the allegations of conspiracy.
However, the court did uphold the allegation of financing terrorism, and Lafarge has been working hard to dismiss this allegation.
In addition to the company, eight Lafarge executives, including former CEO Bruno Laffont (Bruno Laffont), have also been charged with funding terrorist organizations and/or endangering the lives of others.
The trial date has not yet been determined, and the legal investigation is still ongoing.
Lafarge said it “continues to cooperate fully with French judicial authorities.” It said it would not comment further on the judicial process, but said it has taken steps to ensure that such incidents do not occur again in the future.
The company finally left Syria in September 2014, after ISIL occupied its factory in Jalabia, about 150 kilometers (95 miles) northeast of the regional capital, Aleppo.
Although Lafarge has evacuated its foreign employees, Syrian employees like Mustafa Sheikh Nuh have to continue working.
“We asked the company to stop working, but they did not stop,” Nuh told Al Jazeera. “The company is responsible for all those who are arrested, killed or kidnapped.”
Sherpa Chairman Franceline Lepany told Al Jazeera that it is not only the state that has the responsibility.
From her home in Paris, she said: “Companies that move to a country because a country is profitable for them may also end up contributing to international crime, including crimes against humanity or financing of terrorism.”
The company accused of the crime
The company is not the first multinational company accused of participating in crimes against humanity for conducting activities in a country where its people have suffered serious human rights violations.
But such cases are rarely tried.
Twelve Nigerians took the British-Dutch energy giant Shell to court in the United States, accusing it of instigating extrajudicial executions, torture, rape and crimes against humanity in the Niger Delta in the 1990s.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case in 2013, stating that the U.S. court has no jurisdiction over the matter.
Human rights organizations including Sherpas also questioned companies operating in China. French prosecutors launched an investigation in July on four fashion retailers suspected of concealing crimes against humanity in Xinjiang, China.
[ad_2]
Source link